Originally posted by rapier28
Yeah, but they not M-16 rifles, which is what the other poster was suggesting.

The difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 is LITERALLY a piece of metal that can be made from a coke can. If you have ANY kind of brain and a small
bit of will power you can convert a semi auto rifle to full auto in less then an hour at a cost of 20 bucks or less.

Besides, it IS legal to get a full blown M-16. You just need to aply for the proper permit, which involves an FBI background check. It's really not
that big of a deal.

Are you sure violent crime is less then England?

100%. In fact, there is a direct link to LOW crime rates and high gun ownership (with the ability to carry the weapons). For instance, check the crime
rates in Florida before and after they legalised carrying pistols. Then look at the major crime capitols of the US - DC and NYC. They both have the
most restrictive gun ownership laws.

I thought that in the U.S you could buy guns from states like Georgia, as many as you want, drive up to New York where you can't buy that
many. So the gun laws in the U.S are ineffective, am i wrong?

There are ways to get around some gun laws, but for the most part it is very hard. Most of the gun laws in the US are for pistols and such, which
require a waiting period (unless you have a gun carry permit, since this requires a background check, there is little reason to do another). NYC is
one of the few places in the US where gun ownership is severly restricted, and as I have pointed out, it has one of the highest crime rates for a
major city in the US.

"In fact, the violent crime rate is actually HIGHER in nations such as England where fire arm ownership is illegal."

Do you have any facts to back this up?

What about for Scotland?

Cheers

BHR

Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that
gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996;
robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned,
the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United
States.

I have got the hard facts on the US side but getting comparable ones for here is much harder (go, figure).

As an aside I came across another quote from John Lott (the guy who wrote the article in your link). He claims that it is almost impossible to compare
countries crime rates due to the different measures taken and used.

Look, no matter how you try slice it, it is a PROVEN STATISTICAL FACT that banning guns helps INCREASE violent crime. You can look at statistics of
American cities to prove this, you can look at your own countries statistics to prove this, you can compare virtually any two countries to prove
this.

Hell - the safest country in the world - switzerland - actually PAYS private citizens to own not only automatic weapons, but explosives too. Think
about it from a criminals point of view...You are going to mug someone - where would you rather do it? In a US city where literally 1 out of three
people carry a gun, or in London where NO ONE can even own a gun? The choice seems clear to me.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.